valuation tools for ecosystem services assessment across ... · function transfer (wildlife habitat...
TRANSCRIPT
Valuation tools for ecosystem
services assessment across spatial
and temporal scales
Ken Bagstad1, Brian Voigt2, Darius Semmens1, Robert Winthrop3
1USGS – Geosciences & Environmental Change Science Center, Denver, CO2University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
3Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC
Project Goals
• Determine usefulness
of ecosystem service
valuation for the BLM
• Determine the
feasibility of valuation
tools and methods given BLM’s
capabilities
• Provide relevant
information for project planning in the Gila
District
Study area & ecosystem services
• San Pedro River, SE Arizona/San Pedro Riparian
NCA
• Water, biodiversity, carbon, recreation,
“cultural services”
Ecosystem services tools:
the landscapeTraditional valuation methods
Primary valuation
Point transfer
Function transfer (multiple regression)
Function transfer (Bayesian)
Function transfer (Wildlife Habitat
Benefits Estimation Toolkit)
Spatially explicit models, generalizable
ARIES
InVEST
MIMES
SolVES
EcoServ
LUCI
Proprietary/consultant-driven
EcoAIM
EcoMetrix
ESValue
NAIS
SERVES
Spatially explicit models, place-specific
Envision
EPM
InFOREST
Qualitative tools
ESR UNEP-WCMC Ecosystem Services Toolkit
EVI
Evaluative criteria: quantification, replication,
credibility, flexibility, cost-effectiveness
1. Is the tool quantitative, and can it explicitly account for
uncertainty?
2. Time requirements?
3. Open source: requirements for hiring consultants vs. using
trained staff internally?
4. Current level of development & documentation?
5. Scalability & generalizability?
6. Ability to incorporate multiple cultural & valuation
perspectives (i.e., monetary & nonmonetary, Native
American/tribal values)?
7. Ability to “mesh” with existing environmental assessment
methods, cost-effectively providing new insights
Scenarios
2000 2020 – constrained 2020 – open
• Urban growth
(Steinitz et al. 2003)
• Mesquite
management/
grassland
restoration
• CAP water
augmentation
(Brookshire et
al. 2010)
Natural Capital Project/InVEST tool
• Publicly available in beta release at
http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org
• Run in ArcGIS 9/10 toolbox or stand-
alone
• Designed to run present-day
conditions & scenarios via LULC
change maps generated by experts or
public input
• “Tier 2” models described by Kareiva
et al. (2011) but not yet available for
download and use
ARIES: A web-based ES analysis tool
Interface through web
browser/software
development tool
(www.ariesonline.org)
Probabilistic models
carry & report
uncertainty estimates,
work in regions with
incomplete data
Accounts for spatial
flows of ecosystem
services from provision
to beneficiaries
Modeling system
designed to interface
with existing ecological
process models
Methods used
Service Biophysical
modeling &
mapping
(InVEST &
ARIES)
Market
price
Social
cost
RC TC WTP WTP
(transferred)
Hedonic
(transferred)
Carbon ✔ ✔ ✔
Water ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Biodiversity ✔ ✔
Aesthetics ✔ ✔
Recreation ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Performance against evaluative
criteria (Bagstad et al. 2013a)
Results: ARIES & InVEST models
InVEST biodiversity, carbon, water yield results
ARIES carbon results, incl. uncertainty maps
Scenario results: Mesquite management
InVEST
Change in carbon storage Change in water yield Change in habitat quality
Scenario results: Mesquite management
InVEST (Monetization)
Range of values for carbon, annual water yield, and combined net present value (NPV)
Monetary values
depend on assumed
price
Service Cost range
Carbon
(ton)$21 to $85
Water yield
(m3 / year)
$0.33 to
$2.32
Discount
rate1% to 7%
Comparability of results (ARIES-
InVEST, Bagstad et al. 2013b)
Importance of testing multiple tools in common contexts –understand replicability & where performance diverges
Conclusions: challenges
• Neither model produce reliable, high-quality outputs using reasonable resource levels to use on a Bureau-wide scale
– Both models require very detailed data to support ecological and economic sub-models
– Generalized models do not easily reflect local conditions
• Previously collected ecological & economic data do not always integrate well with model data needs
Conclusions: good news
• The process works, but it requires substantial resources and time
• ARIES and InVEST results led us to similar conclusions, especially for landscape-scale scenarios
• Given the rapidly changing landscape for ES tools, the models may rapidly improve development even in the short to medium-term
• Significant opportunities exist to reduce resource requirements to run these models (i.e., data management and sharing)
• Could improve the situation with: – Carefully-targeted funding
– Incentives for collaboration between project teams & government, academic, NGO communities
BLM-wide outcomes
Comparative multi-tool case
studies
• To our knowledge, San Pedro has been the
only one
• Need more:
– Comparisons between ES-focused tools in the
same decision context & with same underlying
data (Do we get the same results with different ES
tools? When are certain tools more appropriate?)
– Comparisons between ES tools and disciplinary
biophysical models (How well can simplified ES
tools perform against more rigorously tested
disciplinary models?)
Phase II – Moab, UT
• Bureau of Land
Management (BLM)
• Master Leasing Plan
– Addendum to the existing Resource Management Plan (MLP)
– 950,000 acres in east-central Utah
– Oil, gas, and potash development
– Effect(s) on recreation (aesthetic resources) & freshwater resources
NPS/Forest Service case studies
• Map social values (SolVES) and biophysically modeled ecosystem service (ARIES/others)• Identify “hotspots” and
tradeoffs between ecosystem services & social values (Alessa et al. 2008, Bryan et al. 2011)
• Integrate into NF/NP planning & management (Cape Lookout NS, NC; Pike-San Isabel NF, CO; beyond)
Toward nationally applicable approaches:
National Ecosystem Services Partnership
“A standard assessment framework for ecosystem services”
“Incorporating values and assessing social and environmental trade-offs in managing for ecosystem services”
Acknowledgements
• BLM-USGS Ecosystem Services Valuation Pilot
colleagues, esp. Dave Goodrich, Malka Pattison,
Mark Rekshynskyj
• ARIES project team, esp. Gary Johnson, Ferdinando
Villa
• InVEST project team, esp. Chris Colvin, Driss
Ennaanay, Heather Tallis, Stacie Wolny
• September 2010 San Pedro ecosystem services
expert review panel
Publications
• Bagstad, K.J., D. Semmens, R. Winthrop, D. Jaworski, and J. Larson. 2012.
Ecosystem services valuation to support decision making on public lands:
A case study for the San Pedro River, Arizona. USGS Scientific
Investigations Report 2012-5251.
• Bagstad, K.J., D. Semmens, and R. Winthrop. 2013a. Alternative
approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study
from the semiarid San Pedro River basin, Arizona. Ecosystem Services
5:40-50.
• Bagstad, K.J., D. Semmens, S. Waage, and R. Winthrop. 2013b. A
comparative assessment of tools for ecosystem services quantification
and valuation. Ecosystem Services 5:27-39.
• Bagstad, K.J., D. Semmens, F. Villa, and G.W. Johnson. In press.
Quantifying and valuing ecosystem services: An application of ARIES to the
San Pedro River basin, USA. Forthcoming in: Economics of Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services, Edward Elgar.
Thanks!